No, Gun Control is not a pro-life issue!

Well, maybe gun control is a pro-life matter if it is admitted that guns are effective tools to protect the weak and vulnerable from criminals. It is a pro-life action to save a life from harm. But this blog post is about something else.

Christians are often scolded for failing to include better gun control (or banning) in their arguments against abortion and euthanasia. As defined, abortion is the taking of a human life which is yet unborn. Euthanasia is the taking of a human life who is deemed too disabled, ill, or old to be allowed to survive. Abortion is always involuntary for the baby; euthanasia may be voluntary but is increasingly being made involuntary by families and authorities. To be pro-life, the Christian argues, is to be against these acts of murder.

As the gun control argument is presented, Christians are inconsistent if they do not likewise seek to limit access to firearms so that mass shooting tragedies could be reduced or avoided completely.

But if the argument is made this way, it ignores the fact that the most vocal opponents of firearm access are also the most likely to be proponents of abortion and euthanasia. The irony is that those who would control firearms through state regulations are the same people who invoke the powers of the same state regulators to pay for abortions and euthanasia, to train doctors to perform them and limits protestors’ freedom of expression to protest against it.

The government that enforces laws against murder does not at the same time train killers and provide their weapons. It does not protect them from the consequences of their acts and rightly condemns them.

Comparing abortion, euthanasia to mass shootings and murder doesn’t acknowledge this significant difference, while at the same time refusing to see the one similarity: all kill the innocent all are murder.

No one should listen to anyone who calls for a surrender of firearms but pushes for the government-sanctioned murder of the most helpless people in society. Such a mindset is so skewed, so schizophrenic, so depraved as to be disqualified from the discussion. It matters little if the pro-choice crowd has the peoples’ support, state authority and finance, church support, popular media praise, or the approval of educational institutions. The fact is if they will kill the helpless they will eventually get around to you.

Mass shootings are rare. Abortion and euthanasia are not. Jesus warned against swallowing a camel but chocking on a gnat. Failure to know the difference is what damned the Pharisees of His day and it can do the same today.

The Refusal of Conscience in Justin Trudeau’s Government

As expected, I received a rejection letter from Service Canada for an application for Canada Summer Jobs. This is the first time funding for our organization has been rejected. We have received funding since 2009.

The reason for this rejection is that as a Christian church, we reject human abortion and the marriage rights of those who of the same sex.

The 2018 application required a signed attestation that reads:

“Both the job and the organization’s core mandate respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other rights. These include reproductive rights and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.”

Below is a screenshot of the repairs I made to the application I submitted. I marked over the words in bold above:

Yesterday I received an email from Service Canada:

Your application must be resubmitted because the attestation cannot be altered or modified. The “I attest” box must be checked and the application signed.  You can resubmit the last page only, which contains the requested jobs, the attestation and the signature.”

So, this year we will not receive a Canada Summer Jobs grant because of a conscientious objection to sodomy and the murder of infants. Bad idea for the Government of Canada: Ontario has just raised the minimum wage 22% on January first, and now has lost 59,000 jobs since then, mostly part-time.

This is unconstitutional and against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Follow this blog until it’s deemed illegal.

Three Reasons Why Signing the Attestation as Written, is Wrong.

Important background information here.

We are now assured by the Prime Minister’s own words and his employment minister that what the attestation means is not as it appears (offending sentences in bold italics):

“Both the job and the organization’s core mandate respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other rights. These include reproductive rights and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.”

There are at least three red flags here:

First: Anyone who has ever signed a contract knows that what is written has priority what is said verbally. If I have misread this statement to mean, “our church must believe, as part of our core mandate, that abortion is acceptable” (as well as the other abominations–you sort that out), so have all the other religious charities in Canada who hold to traditional understandings of human life and marriage.

But our leaders are telling us it is only the charity’s activities that matter. But this isn’t what is stated in the attestation. To sign it is to sign an abomination The core mandate of any Christian church is to be pro-life, whether or not they are actively engaged in outwardly visible activities. Being Biblically faithful is the air that Christians breathe, and there is no way the activities of the church can be separated from its beliefs.

So just as I wouldn’t sign any contract that differed so materially from what the other party says it means, no one should trust this government to keep their word. In another year when there is another issue, do we want this signed attestation brought out to show our approval in 2018 of these things? Once faith is sold, it is very hard to redeem it.

Second: The government’s attack on legal, registered charities must not go unanswered. These are not terrorist groups and are not operating illegally, nor are they advocating for law-breaking. To the contrary, they are advocating for changing the law to protect the unborn.

Besides being a dangerous move to trust the government on this issue, to accept the grant while it is denied to others on this basis is a breach of faith with those who are on the frontlines of pro-life activities. If we are pro-life, we must stand with those who are more active than we are.

Third: This government, as is the habit of governments, is expanding its perceived ownership of life-and-death issues. This is just not a pro-life problem but shows the government’s desire to politicize everything in life, and reduce the sphere of faith to one’s own person and in one’s church. I once heard an officer of the charities branch of the Canadian Revenue Agency speaking to a crowd of charity officers actually use pro-life activism as something the agency does not disapprove of. 

It is likely that the Prime Minister would like to secularize all of society (as much of it was, while Christians slept), and to do so he would have to eliminate charitable status for all but atheist organizations. I do believe this is his end-game, and he has a lot of cheerleaders.

The Prime Minister’s approach reflects the idea that a tax break is a grant. This can only be true when the state is all, and all is the state’s.